I spoke with an eloquent European the other day who argued that America’s history of policing the world has been a net positive - and we are lucky to have it over the influence of countries like China. The world would be a much worse place if America had not policed the world because it would have been controlled by the 1) Nazi’s 2) communists 3) some more oppressive regime.
On the other side of the argument, we have the idea that most of America’s wars were in vein. We over reacted with Japan, we knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, we fund proxy wars around the world, and install governments that aren’t usually more stable than their previous regimes.
This debate is important because it is the historic rationale for whether America should continue to police the world. Otherwise, the argument would have to be made that previously it was beneficial for America to do so, but now - somehow - its net effect is always harmful.
Really? Japan attacks United States territory with military assets and under direction of their government, and Roosevelt was supposed to say, ‘Oh, you guys!’?
Sure, when strategic goals align we’d rather send in The Expendables than spend our own money and manpower. And y’all seem ever so eager to blow shit up, like kids on the 4th of July ;).
But mostly you do it for yourselves without anybody asking for shit, and pretend you’re leading the free world. See : Iraq.
America should police the world - No
**
its past efforts have been net-positive** - Hell no.
Japan wasn’t America policing the world, that was self-defence (however self-inflicted it might have been re: blockades etc). Korea was a UN police action. American efforts since then have been shit. Especially its interference in Africa - Assassinating Lumumba and imprisoning Nelson Mandela being cases in point.
China? The country whose leaders are presently showing up on 4 continents with bags of cash and technical assistance. Who are currently spending a trillion building infrastructure all over the world. That China?
Hegemonies have historically been good for world peace and profit. Ancient China, Rome, the Islamic Caliphate, the British Empire, now the American domination. Perhaps it will be China’s turn next?
Depends on which side of the hegemony you’re sitting. It wasn’t much peaceful (or profitable) being stepped on by Athens, Rome, the Caliphate, the Empire *or *the US.
But after you’d been stepped upon and been conquered, things were significantly better, weren’t they? Trade flourishes when it’s safer and the wealth displayed by all countries involved demonstrates that.
Not really. Ask the Indians how much they liked their racist Raj ;). Athens’ allies turned on it as soon as it was survivable (but then, Athens really was a dick about the whole thing and rubbed it in their faces). Islam promised quite a lot of equality when it started out its conquests, which led many places to just say “yeah ok, you’re the new boss” ; but didn’t fulfil them which led to umpteen problems down the line (and they kinda kept making that same mistake over and over, too). Rome, well, that’s more of a maybe but then again do bear in mind the only sources we have on Roman history were written or engraved by Romans or romanized elites, so that’s kind of a selective sample :D. Other similar examples would be Napoleonic Europe or Soviet Eastern Europe - conquered but emphatically not equal partners in the hegemony.
Basically shit is good for the hegemon’s ethno-cultural group. For everyone else… not so much. Which is understandable - you look after your own people first, don’t you ?
Crime is multinational so someone needs to police this.
In terms of national transgressions, the UN has not been greatly effective. Most countries will do business with the devil they know if in their interests, or don’t care about politically unimportant (to them) problems. The US is not different from other countries in this regard.
In Realpolitik, since Monroe the US has been involved in “policing the world”. There have been major successes and failures. In terms of bringing happiness to the majority of people as per Bentham, major wars and democracy in the Western world probably outweigh the more misguided actions.
:dubious:
The Mughals. The Delhi Caliphate. The Mauryans. All controlled most or large parts of the subcontinent for lengthy periods of time, before the British ever came, so that 1930’s era colonialist crap trap should be seen for what it is.
I think there is some truth on both sides of this debate. The U.S. apparently did indeed assassinate Patrice Lumumba, a gentle democratically-elected leader who was working toward progress and prosperity for his country and continent. Americans need to acknowledge their huge guilt in such matters. There are many other examples of wanton American aggression, such as the 1953 coup against Iran’s Mohammad Mosaddegh. In the cases of Congo and Iran the usual excuse about halting the expansion of communism doesn’t apply — both these travesties were committed to ensure continued profits for rich Western corporations exploiting the undeveloped countries.
But not all American interventions are wrong. Ending World War II quickly was surely the right thing to do. South Korea and countries like Bosnia owe their existence to American actions. The situation in the Middle East has become very complicated, but almost everyone agrees that defeating Daesh (ISIS) is a worthy goal, and we should be proud that the U.S. is leading that effort.
This seems like a fair summary. America will resist China’s growing power, which is very natural regardless of which side is “right” or “wrong.”
Indian economic growth under the British was abysmal, actually, to a degree that’s difficult to believe unless you look into it. (This wasn’t necessarily the case for every imperial government, by the way, but it’s true for the British).
“The Indian economy grew at about 1% per year from 1880 to 1920, and the population also grew at 1%.[1] The result was, on average. no long-term change in income levels. Agriculture was still dominant, with most peasants at the subsistence level. Extensive irrigation systems were built, providing an impetus for growing cash crops for export and for raw materials for Indian industry, especially jute, cotton, sugarcane, coffee and tea.[24] 5. Agricultural income imparted the strongest effect on GDP. Agriculture grew by expanding the land frontier between 1860 and 1914 and became scarce after 1914.[25]”
For the British, yes, and even then, that’s up for debate - colonial entreprises weren’t very cost-efficient, or peaceful. There is some scholarly debate on whether the violence inherent in keeping a population subjugated led in turn to a brutalization of British society, when the colonials went back home with their learned behaviours. Colonial entreprises also paved the way for the jingoistic nationalism that led to WW1.
But regardless, the British plundered the *shit *out of the country. AND flooded China with opium in the process.
I’m glad some people pointed out the curious disconnect I often see between historical analysis and acknowledgment of atrocities. Someone will say it was so wonderful how Alexander the Great spread Greek culture (as if that were his plan) or the Mongol invasions opened up trade routes or whatever. Yeah, I guess it’s pretty swell for some 21st century citizen sipping a latte. Not so great if you and everyone you know is getting their heads chopped off.
Just to go full Godwin, I imagine the Nazis winning and in 500 years some historian gushing how they unified European culture.